New Hamspshire is rolling up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by bheld

How? By regulating business?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Care to provide some sources? Because the information I have suggests otherwise.

Sources for what? Chile's economy or the meeting between Friedman and Pinochet?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

How? By regulating business?

Would you consider a law that makes it illegal to harm another's property through dumping toxic waste in a river that flows through their property a regulation on business, or a property rights protection law?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Would you consider a law that makes it illegal to harm another's property through dumping toxic waste in a river that flows through their property a regulation on business, or a property rights protection law?

Smells like regulation to me. The free-market answer would be that somebody dies from the toxic waste and people move away and don't die anymore. Problem solved.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

Sources for what? Chile's economy or the meeting between Friedman and Pinochet?

Both, although I was referring to the chilean economy. Because I remember looking at this during a prior conversation either here or on the other forum, and seeing that the GDP (I believe it was the GDP) grew quite well under these policies.

However, the common criticism is that the number living in poverty doubled, and the number of people who were homeless increased by something like 50% (I'm going from memory here, the percentage is probably off somewhat, sorry). Basically, the gap between the rich and the poor grew rapidly.

Oh and unemployment increased rapidly too, from.. was it 3.5%? to something like 23%.

Almost forgot.

Does that sum it up?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Would you consider a law that makes it illegal to harm another's property through dumping toxic waste in a river that flows through their property a regulation on business, or a property rights protection law?

How about a law telling companies how they're allowed to dispose of materials to avoid environmental damage?

It doesn't even have to be in a river, if it's in some type of pond and it seeps through into the ground water, it can do the same damage.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

Smells like regulation to me. The free-market answer would be that somebody dies from the toxic waste and people move away and don't die anymore. Problem solved.

A free market is based on implicit private property rights. That means that if someone harms your property (including your health) then you have a claim against them.

How does regulating business aside from protecting property and health rights do anything to prevent this? Are you going to have the government shut them down after they dump waste in the river and the kids get cancer anyway? Or instead of doing it that way, perhaps have the people of the community that own the river or property effected by the dumping sue the company?

Either way, there is a remedy, and neither one will stop a stupid company from dumping in the first place. Just because there is a law to stop criminal behavior (it was criminal to harm someone else's property in the first place) does not mean it ends.

I guess I just don't see how the government regulation prevents that in the first place.

[motivez]

That solution is reactive instead of proactive.. and relies on the idea that although the only virtue cared about is the almighty dollar, people won't do stupid shit in order to profit.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by motivez

How about a law telling companies how they're allowed to dispose of materials to avoid environmental damage?

It doesn't even have to be in a river, if it's in some type of pond and it seeps through into the ground water, it can do the same damage.

What if the company comes up with a new way to dispose of the waste? Now they are limited by an outdated law that is unlikely to change.

Or worse, what if the way the regulations state it should be disposed turns out to be poorly thought out? Now the government has some liability for not protecting the citizens properly, and the citizens can sue for a quadrillion dollars

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Both, although I was referring to the chilean economy. Because I remember looking at this during a prior conversation either here or on the other forum, and seeing that the GDP (I believe it was the GDP) grew quite well under these policies.

However, the common criticism is that the number living in poverty doubled, and the number of people who were homeless increased by something like 50% (I'm going from memory here, the percentage is probably off somewhat, sorry). Basically, the gap between the rich and the poor grew rapidly.

Oh and unemployment increased rapidly too, from.. was it 3.5%? to something like 23%.

Almost forgot.

Does that sum it up?

and inflation went to astronomical levels. This is from the wikipedia article that at least shows that a meeting happened.

In 1975, Friedman was a keynote speaker at a high-profile economic conference in Santiago, Chile where he spoke along with other members of the University of Chicago. Friedman subsequently admitted in a published letter that his visit to Chile and meeting Pinochet provoked criticisms due to his support for what many believed to be a vicious regime installed by the United States government for its own economic gain.

here's the wikipedia article on the history of the economy

Economic history of Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[motivez]

Well, then we go back to good government vs bad government. If it's not managed well, outdated laws stay on the books, and bad get written in.

Everyone makes mistakes, at least if it's the government doing it, it's people you've chosen to represent you, and you have an opportunity to correct it. If you rely on a private company, you can only speak with your dollar.. and since most of us aren't lucky enough to have as many of those as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, we don't have a very big voice.

[thewise1]

Anyway, what was that country? I'd really love to read about it

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

A free market is based on implicit private property rights. That means that if someone harms your property (including your health) then you have a claim against them.

How does regulating business aside from protecting property and health rights do anything to prevent this? Are you going to have the government shut them down after they dump waste in the river and the kids get cancer anyway? Or instead of doing it that way, perhaps have the people of the community that own the river or property effected by the dumping sue the company?

Either way, there is a remedy, and neither one will stop a stupid company from dumping in the first place. Just because there is a law to stop criminal behavior (it was criminal to harm someone else's property in the first place) does not mean it ends.

I guess I just don't see how the government regulation prevents that in the first place.

I'm having trouble figuring out your point. Now you're saying that there shouldn't be laws about dumping toxic waste and that the injured parties should resolve the issue through the court system?

[motivez]

I don't remember, I just remember lew talking about it and liking the idea of private roads with guards and guns and whatnot.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Anyway, what was that country? I'd really love to read about it

What specific qualities are you looking for? Open markets? Free trade?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, modern polling is pretty good. The fact that none of them showed Hillary winning is amazing

I've never seen polls that were any good

I thought we were all pretty much on the same page there after the 2000 and 2004 elections. I don't expect they have changed much since those times.

[thewise1]

Well, isn't that essentially what happens now? How does government regulation saying "you can't dump in the river" actually prevent anything?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by bheld

I'm having trouble figuring out your point. Now you're saying that there shouldn't be laws about dumping toxic waste and that the injured parties should resolve the issue through the court system?

It will just end up being a cost/benefit thing for the company and they can keep on killing people or making them sick if it stays profitable.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

What specific qualities are you looking for? Open markets? Free trade?

I was asking about that african country that lew was talking about as being very libertarian

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I was asking about that african country that lew was talking about as being very libertarian

Libertaria?


Oh, wait, that's Liberia